Which one of the following rights conferred by the constitution of India is also available to non-citizens?

1. Introduction to Part III: Nature and Significance (basic)

Part III of the Indian Constitution (Articles 12 to 35) is often referred to as the Magna Carta of India. These rights are deemed 'fundamental' because they are essential for the all-round development—material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual—of every individual Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.74. While the Constitution originally provided for seven Fundamental Rights, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 deleted the Right to Property (Article 31), reclassifying it as a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.96.

One of the most critical aspects of Part III is its justiciability. This means that these rights are enforceable by courts; if they are violated, the aggrieved person has a legal recourse. However, there is a sharp distinction between Fundamental Rights and other constitutional or legal rights. For most legal violations, a person must move through the lower courts first. In contrast, for a violation of a Fundamental Right, one can directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.106. This makes Article 32 unique: it is not just a procedure, but a Fundamental Right in itself.

It is also important to note that while the Constitution aims to protect everyone, it distinguishes between citizens and foreigners (aliens) regarding these protections. Some rights, like the six freedoms of Article 19 (speech, assembly, etc.), are strictly reserved for Indian citizens. However, other rights, such as Equality (Article 14) and the Right to Life (Article 21), are available to all "persons." This implies that even a non-citizen can invoke the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32) to protect those specific rights that the Constitution extends to them Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), CITIZENSHIP, p.83.

Feature	Fundamental Rights (Part III)	Other Constitutional Rights
Enforcement	Direct access to Supreme Court via Art. 32.	Ordinary legal process/High Court.
Nature	The remedy (Art. 32) is itself a Fundamental Right.	The remedy is a statutory or general legal right.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.74; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.96; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.106; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), CITIZENSHIP, p.83

2. The Concept of Citizenship and Aliens in India (basic)

In the study of Indian Polity, understanding the distinction between a citizen and an alien is the foundation of our legal identity. A citizen is a full member of the Indian State, owing allegiance to it and enjoying all the civil and political rights provided by the Constitution. On the other hand, an alien is a person who is not a citizen of India. Aliens are further divided into two categories: friendly aliens (subjects of countries with which India has cordial relations) and enemy aliens (subjects of a country at war with India).

While the Constitution is generous, it creates a clear boundary regarding who can enjoy certain Fundamental Rights. Specifically, five Fundamental Rights are reserved exclusively for citizens: Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 6, p.63. This means a foreigner cannot claim the six freedoms under Article 19 (like freedom of speech or movement) as a matter of right. However, most other rights, such as Article 14 (Equality) and Article 21 (Life and Liberty), are available to all "persons"—whether they are citizens or friendly aliens.

Feature	Friendly Alien	Enemy Alien
Fundamental Rights	Enjoy most rights except Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, 30.	Enjoy even fewer rights than friendly aliens.
Protection against Arrest	Entitled to protection under Article 22.	Denied protection of Article 22 (Clauses 1 & 2) regarding arrest/detention.

It is also important to note that India recognizes special categories for its diaspora. An NRI (Non-Resident Indian) is an Indian citizen living abroad, whereas an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) is a foreign national of Indian origin who enjoys certain privileges but does not have political rights like voting or holding constitutional offices Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 6, p.69-70. Additionally, children of foreign diplomats or enemy aliens cannot acquire Indian citizenship by birth Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 6, p.64.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 6: Citizenship, p.63-64, 69-70; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 7: CITIZENSHIP, p.83

3. Detailed Breakdown of Article 19: The Six Freedoms (intermediate)

At the heart of Indian democracy lies Article 19, often described as the backbone of our civil liberties. This Article guarantees six fundamental freedoms that provide the essential atmosphere for a citizen's mental, moral, and political development. A crucial point to remember from the start is that these rights are exclusive—they are guaranteed only to citizens of India and are not available to foreigners or legal entities like corporations Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p. 85. While Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Equality) protect everyone on Indian soil, the specific liberties of Article 19 are a privilege of citizenship.

Originally, the Constitution protected seven freedoms. However, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 deleted the 'right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property,' reclassifying it as a legal right under Article 300-A rather than a fundamental one Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p. 117. Today, the six freedoms are: (1) Speech and expression, (2) Peaceful assembly (without arms), (3) Associations, unions, or cooperative societies, (4) Free movement throughout India, (5) Residence and settlement in any part of the country, and (6) The right to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p. 30.

It is vital to understand that these freedoms are not absolute. The State can impose 'reasonable restrictions' on them based on specific grounds like the sovereignty of India, public order, or morality. Furthermore, Article 19 and Article 21 are not isolated silos; the Supreme Court has often held that they overlap. For instance, a law that restricts a person's liberty under Article 21 must also be tested for its 'reasonableness' under Article 19 to ensure it isn't arbitrary Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p. 130.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.85; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.117; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.130

4. Judicial Review and Article 13: Safeguarding Part III (intermediate)

To understand the Right to Constitutional Remedies, we must first understand the "shield" that protects our rights: Article 13. While the term 'Judicial Review' is never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, Article 13 is the bedrock upon which this power stands. It acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring that no law—past or future—can trample upon the Fundamental Rights (Part III) of the people.

Article 13 declares that any law which is inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be void. This mandate empowers the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the High Courts (under Article 226) to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. If a law is found to be ultra-vires (beyond the power of) the Constitution, the courts can declare it null and void, making it unenforceable by the government Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.360.

The courts use two vital doctrines to implement this review without necessarily scrapping entire legal frameworks:

Doctrine	The Core Concept
Severability	If only a specific part of a law violates Fundamental Rights, the court doesn't need to strike down the whole law. If the "bad" part can be separated from the "good" part, only the invalid portion is declared void Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation, p.647.
Eclipse	Mainly applied to pre-constitutional laws, this doctrine states that an inconsistent law is not dead; it is merely overshadowed (eclipsed) by Fundamental Rights. If the Constitution is later amended to remove the inconsistency, the law becomes active again Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation, p.650.

Crucially, Article 13 defines "Law" very broadly. It includes not just Acts of Parliament, but also ordinances, orders, rules, and even customs or usages having the force of law. This ensures that the State cannot bypass Fundamental Rights through administrative shortcuts or traditional practices.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.360; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation, p.647; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation, p.650

5. Writ Jurisdiction: Article 32 and Article 226 (intermediate)

To truly master the enforcement of rights in India, we must understand the dual machinery provided by the Constitution: Article 32 for the Supreme Court and Article 226 for the High Courts. While both courts have the power to issue five types of writs—Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto—their jurisdictions differ significantly in scope and nature. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98.

One of the most frequent points of confusion for students is which court has a "wider" jurisdiction. Interestingly, the High Court's writ jurisdiction is wider than that of the Supreme Court. This is because the Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. In contrast, a High Court can issue them not only for Fundamental Rights but also for "any other purpose," which includes the enforcement of ordinary legal rights. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.358. However, territorially, the Supreme Court's reach is broader as its writs run throughout the entire country, whereas a High Court is generally limited to its state boundaries.

Another critical distinction lies in the discretionary nature of the remedy. Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right; therefore, the Supreme Court is the guarantor and defender of these rights and cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction when a violation is proved. On the other hand, the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary. This means a High Court may refuse to grant a writ if it feels an alternative, effective remedy exists elsewhere. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.99.

Finally, it is essential to remember that this power is so vital to our democracy that the Supreme Court has ruled writ jurisdiction to be a part of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. This means that even a Constitutional Amendment cannot take away or abridge these powers from the Supreme Court or the High Courts. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.358.

Feature	Supreme Court (Art. 32)	High Court (Art. 226)
Purpose	Only for Fundamental Rights.	Fundamental Rights + Ordinary Legal Rights.
Nature	Mandatory (as Art. 32 is a Fundamental Right).	Discretionary (may refuse if alternative remedy exists).
Territory	All of India.	Concerned State or where cause of action arises.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Fundamental Rights, p.98-99; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.358

6. Categorization: Rights for Citizens vs. Rights for All Persons (exam-level)

When we look at the Fundamental Rights in Part III of our Constitution, it is easy to assume they apply to everyone on Indian soil. However, the framers made a deliberate distinction between rights that are the exclusive privilege of citizens and rights that belong to all persons (which includes foreigners, aliens, and even legal entities like corporations). This distinction is vital because it protects the political and social integrity of the nation while upholding basic human dignity for everyone within our borders M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 8, p. 74.

Certain rights are strictly reserved for citizens only. These include the right against discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (Article 15), equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16), the six freedoms of Article 19 (speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession), and cultural and educational rights (Articles 29 and 30) D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 7, p. 83. On the other hand, rights that touch upon basic human existence—such as equality before the law (Article 14), protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21), and freedom of religion (Articles 25–28)—are extended to every 'person' on Indian soil, regardless of their nationality D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 7, p. 98.

Category	Rights for Citizens ONLY	Rights for ALL Persons (including Foreigners)
Key Articles	Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, 30	Articles 14, 20, 21, 21A, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Logic	Political and civil privileges tied to membership in the Indian State.	Universal human rights and basic legal protections.

Now, how does this relate to the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)? Since Article 32 is the mechanism to enforce Fundamental Rights, its availability depends on the right being violated. If a foreigner's right to life (Article 21) is threatened, they can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 because that specific right is guaranteed to them. However, they cannot use Article 32 to claim a right they don't possess, such as the freedom to reside anywhere in India under Article 19. Thus, Article 32 is a universal remedy, but its scope for a non-citizen is limited to the specific subset of rights they are entitled to M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 8, p. 30.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights, p.74; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 7: CITIZENSHIP, p.83; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.98; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the distinction between rights exclusive to citizens and those available to all persons, this question serves as the perfect application of that logic. You will recall from your study of Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth that the Constitution reserves a specific set of Fundamental Rights strictly for the citizens of India—namely Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30. By recognizing this framework, you can immediately see that options (A), (B), and (C) are all clusters of freedoms contained within Article 19. Since Article 19 is the primary "citizens-only" pillar, these three options are logically excluded from being available to non-citizens.

To arrive at the correct answer, you must think functionally about the legal system. As noted in Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, if a non-citizen is granted the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, they must also be granted the means to protect it. This is why (D) Right to constitutional remedies is the correct choice. Article 32 acts as the guarantor for any "person" (not just a citizen) whose specific applicable Fundamental Rights have been violated. Without this remedy, the rights guaranteed to foreigners, such as protection against double jeopardy or the right to equality, would be unenforceable in a court of law.

The trap here lies in the way UPSC clusters options. Notice how (A), (B), and (C) are all components of the same Article (19). A seasoned aspirant recognizes this pattern: when three options belong to the same restricted category, the "odd one out" is usually the answer. Do not be confused by the common misconception that non-citizens have no rights; while they lack political and civil freedoms like movement and speech (Article 19), they are absolutely protected by judicial remedies to ensure their basic human rights are upheld while on Indian soil.